The single-judge benched High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, held that appeals lie against restitution orders under Section 144 of CPC. It ruled that civil revision petitions under Section 115 of CPC against such orders are misconceived. The court dismissed the petitions.
The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed and no costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
CRP.No. 192 of 2010 ( )
EA 83/1999 IN LAR.48/1983 of ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T.
RESPONDENT(S):
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, ALONG WITH CRP. 365/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
C.R.P. NOs. 192 & 365 OF 2010
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2012
ORDER
The issue is covered by Pushpa Vs. Josekutty [2012
(4) KLT 204] . The definition of decree takes in the determination of any question under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure also. The impugned orders pertain to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The orders are appealable and the Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are misconceived. It is upto to the petitioner to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in case an appeal is filed.
The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether orders pertaining to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure are appealable.
Whether civil revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lie against such appealable orders.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if an appeal is filed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pushpa Vs. JosekuttyFollowed¶20
[2012 (4) KLT 204]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Kerala Represented By The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
K. Padmanabhan
K. L. Narasimhan
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
